New Rifle Cartridge -- .204 Ruger


November 6, 2003, 07:14 PM
Today, Ruger and Hornady announced a new rifle cartridge which Hornady will load and Ruger will chamber.

It's a varmint round, called the .204 Ruger.

For details, see:

"Sturm, Ruger is proud to introduce five rifle models for 2004 in an exciting new caliber: the 204 RUGER. This small, fast, and efficient new cartridge is the result of another joint development effort between Sturm, Ruger and Hornady Manufacturing Company. The 204 RUGER shares the same case head and overall length dimensions as the 222 Remington Magnum, but uses a slender new 20 caliber, 32 grain, V-MAX„¥ bullet. The 204 RUGER¡¦s bullet has an extremely efficient ballistic coefficient of 0.192 and an amazing muzzle velocity of 4,225 feet per second."

If you enjoyed reading about "New Rifle Cartridge -- .204 Ruger" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
November 6, 2003, 07:56 PM
This doesn't sound that different from a Tactical .20, except it's been "legitamized" by Ruger & Hornady. Hmm, maybe that does make it better. ;)

John Mc

November 6, 2003, 08:05 PM
Hmmm ...... quoted velocities at these levels make me think of the .17 (Rem) which well exceeds the 4,000 fps mark ... and has been reputed to wear out a barrel in a mere 2,000 rounds

Not sure it is really needed... is it? I mean, .17 WMR fills a useful low cal varmint gap .... but is not too extreme.

El Tejon
November 6, 2003, 08:14 PM

Mike Irwin
November 6, 2003, 10:07 PM








November 6, 2003, 10:26 PM
The perfect thing for those who need something smaller than a .222, but larger than a .17 rem. Can't wait for the new .42mag revolver to come out.

November 6, 2003, 10:42 PM
Can't wait for the new .42mag revolver to come out. Naw .. that's the 42.5 mag you're thinkin of Okie!:neener: :p

November 6, 2003, 10:46 PM
and another huge yawn here. What I can't do with my .22, or .22 mag, I seem to do just fine with my .222 Remington. I don't need, or want a .17, OR a .204 Ruger.

November 6, 2003, 11:02 PM


November 6, 2003, 11:02 PM
Think of the children

Art Eatman
November 6, 2003, 11:19 PM
To me, this cartridge is similar to the short and short-short magnums: Not really a Good Enough Deal to replace some particular cartridge that's been serving well, but good if the performance will fill a hole in your collection. I wouldn't replace my '06 with a .300 WSM, nor my .223 or .220 Swift with this .204. It would fill the gap between a .22 rimfire or .22 Hornet, and a .243...

Also, all of these seem more suited for an experienced handloader than for the more casual "storebought" ammo user. Load lighter for less serious work and for extending the barrel life, or more toward max for actual hunting...



Mike Irwin
November 7, 2003, 12:59 AM
"It would fill the gap between a .22 rimfire or .22 Hornet, and a .243..."

So do about 150 other cartridges, if you count the European offerings and all of the obsolete stuff that's out there...

What has this new cartridge doomed from the outset, though, is the simple fact that there's FAR too much cheap surplus ammo available for the .223.

People are familiar with the .223 and its capabilities, and I doubt that you're going to see a lot of people picking this new Blunder, er... excuse me, Ruger cartridge over the .223.

I give it two years of splash, 10 years of limping along like a wounded deer, and finally a merciful death....

But, I've been wrong before...

The .280 is still drawing ragged breaths, and the .350 Remington Mag. received a shot of adrenaline (which is already wearing off, from what I understand).

November 7, 2003, 01:24 AM
You all know it's the 7.5 MAS taking the world by storm right now.

rock jock
November 7, 2003, 01:48 AM
Oh boy, a new caliber. I'm underwhelmed.

November 7, 2003, 03:38 AM
Ahhh why? Yuppies?

November 7, 2003, 03:53 AM
This rush to put out new cartridges unfortunately may be the last gasp of an about to be banned or bankrupted industry. God I hope I'm wrong about that.

Time to buy primers and cases in 1,000 round lots, an extra reloading press, dies, and lots of bullets and powder. Bullet molds wouldn't hurt either.

November 7, 2003, 04:51 AM
I think Ruger just wants their name on a caliber, sort of like Glock and the ".45 Glock Auto Pistol" caliber.

I just can't belive how many "new" calibers have been coming out in the last couple years. You've got the WSMs, the Remington Ultra Mags, the .17 HMR, the .45 GAP, the .32 NAA, etc, etc...

Whats the deal? I don't think this many new rounds have ever been introduced in so short a time before...

November 7, 2003, 07:46 AM
Don't hold your breath waiting for one. Ruger announces all manner of things and doesn't come through. The most recent example is their Gold Label shotgun. It made it's second appearance at the Grand in Vandalia this year and none have made it on to the shelves.

A fast .20 caliber? What in heck would I need that for when I have a .22 Hornet and a .223?

I'm with Mike. YAWN!!!!

Art Eatman
November 7, 2003, 09:44 AM
Aw, you guys! Don't be so cynical. Hey, the manufacturers are trying to pump up sales, okay? At least some of this stuff seems like more of a "new thing" than the "new and improved" 2004 automobiles.

Or soap. Or any other newest "gotta have" that the TV folks are trying to sell ya.

:), Art

November 7, 2003, 09:57 AM
But I am not required to buy an expensive soap dispenser for new and improved soap. Although, I am for any reason to buy a new gun, practicality aside. I would not buy this one.

Mike Irwin
November 7, 2003, 10:49 AM
Cynical? No.

Underwhelmed to the maximum extent allowed by law? Yes.

November 7, 2003, 11:44 AM
Another earthshattering YAWN! :rolleyes:

Dave R
November 7, 2003, 11:50 AM
I can see a niche for this. Varmit hunters who want more oomph than a .17 cal and less powder than a .22-250 and more range/flatter trajectory than a .223.

Yah, its a narrow niche.

And with the muzzle velocity they're talking, my guess is that it WILL eat barrels pretty quick.

November 7, 2003, 12:08 PM
Wow. I am so underwhelmed. I can honestly say that I have absolutely no interest in this sub- ¼ bore round.

Which is unlike me.

November 7, 2003, 12:23 PM
I need another caliber, like I need another hole in my head.

No Thanks........

November 7, 2003, 12:39 PM
-Okay wait a minute. The .17HRM is a good deal, for two reasons: the jacketed bullets shoot more accurate than plain lead and the spitzer bullets feed more reliably in semiautos.
. . . .
-though the ammo does still cost too much.... (:/
This new Ruger business I have no use for however.
I am poor, so for center-fire varminting it's very-probably going to be .223 for me.
Cheap ammo=wins.

November 7, 2003, 12:49 PM
El Tejon: that's the first thing written IN ALL CAPS that I've ever thought was hilarious.:D

Art Eatman
November 7, 2003, 01:32 PM
But, hey! It's good for the economy! New stuff provides job security for gunwriters! Lets them pay the rent and feed their kids and all that.

:), Art

Mike Irwin
November 7, 2003, 02:35 PM
I'm thinking of coming out with my own "New" cartridge...

The 9876543210 SpittleSplatz...

The SpittleSplatz is the first rifle capable of trans-light velocities. That means if you miss, that's OK, because the SpittleSplatz can actually reverse time, giving you a second chance at your target.

Energy at the muzzle is an impressive 8x10(43) foot pounds, making the SpittleSplatz fully capable of taking any thing in this, or any other, world. The SpittleSplatz is also amazingly gentle on barrels, normally only sending the chunks and pieces a few hundred meters.

For all of its raw powder, though, the SpittleSplatz has surprisingly little recoil, thanks to our new groundbreaking "Dimensional Recoil Arrester" system. In use, the DRA actually deflects felt recoil into another dimension! The result is faster follow up shots, with the added benefit of your fillings staying in your teeth, and your teeth in your skull.

November 7, 2003, 02:52 PM
Put me down for one will ya Mike ....... be fun at the next shoot!

November 7, 2003, 03:01 PM
I'd be interested in seeing how fast that light bullet sheds energy.

(That was great, El Tejon.)

November 7, 2003, 05:30 PM
I am merely a conduit through which information flows.

It is interesting to see the folks loudly proclaim that they are just too cool for this room, by offering off-target comments.

It appears that at least some of the posters here didn't even bother to read the release I posted the link to.

No, it does not burn up barrels. Less powder, less barrel errosion.

I don't have a stake in this at all, and don't care. I do, however, find the rapid, rabid, and negative comments interesting.

Is there a need for this cartridge? Of course not. Then again, need has nothing to do with our choices of rifles and cartridges. Thanks goodness.

Will a varmint cartridge with velocity near the Swift, with much less recoil, and with much longer barrel life be something to interest some varminters? I don't know.

I'm just glad the companies are still in there pitching.

November 7, 2003, 05:44 PM
Guntalk said:
'I'm just glad the companies are still in there pitching'

Mmmmm. I agree. It's nice to see the companies persuing innovation.

But don't we already have alot of round wheels? Do we really need to keep inventing rounder ones?

And I'll be the first to say that I'm far from an expert on internal ballistics and/or metallurgy, but I just don't see how they can achieve the stated velocities without barrel erosion; the two just go hand in hand.

Or am I missing something here?

Mike Irwin
November 7, 2003, 05:54 PM
"I am merely a conduit through which information flows."

Ok, Mr. Gresham, right there it appears that you think we're attacking YOU, instead of the concept.

That would be a great big no.

I read the release, and am still overwhelmed at how underwhelmed I am.

It wouldn't matter where the information came from. I'd still be underwhelmed.

Yes I, too am glad that the companies are still pitching. When they come out with something truly interesting, I'll be there.

I do have to ask, though...

"No, it does not burn up barrels. Less powder, less barrel errosion."

Is that your personal hands-on observation, or is that what Ruger's claiming? Judging by how your statement is worded, that's Ruger's claim. You haven't had a chance to work with cartridge yet (I doubt that anyone has yet), so pardon me if my "markingcrapometer" starts sounding...

November 7, 2003, 06:18 PM
Hi, Mike:

Nope, I didn't think anyone was attacking me. I did find the immediate regative reactions interesting though. It was obvious that some did not read the release.

There are, of course, those who just have to put down everything new if only to make them look cool on the message boards. Such is life.

I have found Hornady's info to be pretty reliable. It is my understanding that burning less powder (in this case, a LOT less powder) would contribute to less barrel wear, but since I haven't done the test, I can't say if it will or won't. They may be using the high intensity powders they use in the Light Magnum rounds. That might change the picture.

As I said, I'm just relaying the news from the show.

Some new scopes here, new binocs, new pistols, new Tikka rifles, new Mauser rifles coming from Serbia, etc.

I can't really find any holes in the lineup of cartridges now available. Still, new stuff sells guns. It's new stuff that allows us to give ourselves permisson to get another gun (at least, in some cases).

Then again, Sig introduced a 1911 pistol. Sigh.

Hodgdon bought IMR powders.

Some big shakeups at S&W personell. Still in the works. Remington has furloughed 900 employees without pay for a month.

There probably is 50 to 100 percent excess capacity in firearm manfacturing. I sense a slow shakeout in the works, but it could take a decade.

Safe prediction, 'cause in 10 years, no one will remember it!!! <grin>

November 7, 2003, 08:39 PM
A problem Tom I think, is the dichotomy between, on the one hand ''They (the companies) are still pitching'' .... and the other which is .... ''How many diameters of wheel do we need''!:)

I, for one ... am ''over-calibered'' .. certainly when it comes to reloading! So ... I guess there is a temptation to approach this with a smigeon of cynicism ... simply because, with what we already have .. we can load up, load down ... up bullet weights, reduce bullet weights .... and so on. Seeming to give pretty much about as much choice as average shootist might need.

I'll be honest tho ... and trying to keep an open mind ..... I am interested in about any new caliber, variant ... up to a point.... it sparks curiosity but ... the ''practical self'' then comes along and reminds me just how many ''variants'' we have already, how many have fallen by the wayside and just how much willingness the shooting fraternity has or may have, to adopt ''yet another''.

That said ... it is good you should bring this to our attention ... how else would we manage to stay in touch .. for that alone thanks are due. The downside of course is and always will be ... a tendency for some derision to creep in from some sources ..... almost inevitable.

That tho cannot detract from the pure ''newsworthyness'' of the subject matter.

November 7, 2003, 09:36 PM
The buying habits of the gun folks is an interesting study.

This evening, I'm in the bar with the editor of a major gun mag (none that I write for) and two CEO's of gun/ammo companies.

One story was funny. The gun company brought out a lightweight .357 magnum snub nose revolver, so they dropped their .38 Special snub nose.

After all, you can shoot the .38 Special in the .357, right?

Oh no! The customers didn't want a .357 Magnum with all that recoil. They wanted a .38 Special, by God!

So, the company brought back the .38 Special model, and sold a bunch! No amount of talking could convince the public that they could shoot .38 Special ammo in a .357 Magnum.

It is well to remember that the majority of the gun buying public isn't as savvy as the folks on THR.

Mike Irwin
November 7, 2003, 09:56 PM
I remember the same predictions back in the 1970s and 1980s.

S&W, even before the Agreement was having periodic furloughs. So were other manufacturers.

That was happening back in the 1920s and 1930s and earlier, as well, which is why one of the reasons why Winchester got into the hardware business, why Smith & Wesson made its own line of automatic closing toilet flush valves (NOT a joke), and why most companies have branched far outside of the firearms business as either primary or secondary business associations.

Ruger? Their precision investment casting business dwarfs the gun end of things.

S&W? Mountain bikes and HOT SAUCE? :rolleyes:

The firearms business has always been, and always will be, in a state of flux as it, and the environment, changes.

I remember back in the 1970s when it was seriously predicted that most, if not all, American firearms manufacturers would cease to conduct manufacturing operations in the US within 25 years. Those were the days of the Japanese making firearms for just about everyone.

I'm sure that people were saying the same thing in the 1950s and early 1960s when the surplus market was making lots of industry people very unhappy.

The firearms business will adapt. We've seen that adaptation with the introduction of CNC machinery that was touted as the "cure" to all of the QC problems that came about as the companies adapted to changing economic conditions from the 1950s through the 1970s.

The face of the firearms industry may well very VERY different 10 or 15 years from now. But that's not necessarily a bad thing.

The rule of business has always been adapt or die.

And it will always continue to be so.

November 7, 2003, 10:58 PM
Varminting cartridge they say???

===========> .22lr & .223 <===========

What more do you need?

I guess if you have money to burn on new rifles and expensive new ammo the .204 Ruger is right up your alley.

November 7, 2003, 11:26 PM
Sounds interesting to me. I might give it a look.

I always yawn when I read posts that add absolutely nothing to the thread.

November 8, 2003, 05:07 AM
Aw, you guys! Don't be so cynical.

Guilty as charged when it comes to Ruger. The Gold Label remains a distant myth, their much hyped single-barrel trap gun only saw 200 units or so and whatever did happen to the XGI?

A .20 caliber might sound like a good idea until you need bullets. I suppose the .17 caliber cleaning equipment would work.

What amuses me however in the flood of the latest and greatest new cartridges to hit the market is why I would want any of them when the .223, 6.5x55, .30-06, .375 all seem to get the job done. Why have a dozen run-of-the-mill rifles in strange and wonderful calibers when for the same price you can have four top grade firearms?


November 8, 2003, 07:45 AM
"Why have a dozen run-of-the-mill rifles in strange and wonderful calibers when for the same price you can have four top grade firearms?"

Because we want to. And so far, we don't have to justify that to anyone.

Matt G
November 8, 2003, 09:07 AM
This thread has more posts diverging in more directions than any other thread I've read, in recent memory, especially when one considers how narrow the original topic of Guntalk's original post was:

A new round.

Am I really excited? Not very. Interested? Sure. Why not? If we stuck to what was tried and true, we'd never have moved from flintlocks to percussion muzzleloaders. (After all, you can depend on a flintlock. A flintlock won't let you down!)

Some of this stuff is hit and miss, if you'll pardon the expression. I'm mildly surprised that the .17 rimfire is such a big splash. Tickled that it is. What harm in having more types and styles?

I've got a nice .22 LR, and a few months ago picked up a .22 Hornet, which basically has my varmint range filled, right? I suppose I could get a 6MM and a .220 Swift to round things out. But I like the elegance of the low end on a smaller varmint. The .20 caliber offers new opportunities in sectional density for a given weight and velocity.

Am I going to buy one? Dunno. Until this year, I never thought I'd ever be interested in a Hornet, 'til I learned how efficiently they burned powder to give good punch for minimal noise. I'll have to see how barrel erosion goes, what the bullet is capable of, what the energy drop off looks like... etc, etc. In other words, I'll let the gun writers test it on the manufacturer's dime, and make my decisions on that, rather than on an initial report of a press release. :)

November 8, 2003, 09:39 AM
the manufacturers are trying to pump up sales
Ain't marketing great, Art? :) I didn't know 0.192 was an extremely efficient BC until reading this release.

Matt G
November 8, 2003, 02:00 PM
Actually, that's pretty darn good. The 69 g Sierra MatchKing BTHP heavy .224 bullet ( has a S.D. of .194. A 40g BlitzKing Hornet bullet ( has a S.D. of .114.

Releasing a new round with an SD of .192 and a velocity of over 4200 fps is actually kind of interesting. Wonder what the BC of the bullets will be, and how they'll be constructed?

Mike Irwin
November 8, 2003, 03:40 PM
At those speeds, and in that caliber, I'd think that they would practically have to be solids. The jacket is going to have to be very thick.

November 9, 2003, 12:02 AM
I think Ruger just wants their name on a caliber, sort of like Glock and the ".45 Glock Auto Pistol" caliber.
Nope. They've already got the .480 Ruger pistol cartridge.


One's already been mentioned, the bullets are going to be scarce for a long time.

For those who buy, you're going to need some new cleaning equipment. And it's not going to be easy to find. When was the last time you saw .20 caliber jags, bore brushes or cleaning rods for sale?

Why use the .222 as the basis for this? The .222 and .223 are so close in every respect that it's hard for me to imagine why someone would pick the more rare of the two cartridges (by a LONG shot) on which to base a new caliber. Sort of like if Remington had decided to base the .260 Remington on a shortened 6.5x55 Swedish case instead of of a shortened .308 Win case.

November 9, 2003, 01:49 AM
As far as cleaning goes, .20 is a common airgun caliber. If those jags and brushes would screw into any typical firearm cleaning rod I don't know.
Airgun cleaning rods are often different, in that they are unsheathed steel 1-piece, that use a plastic muzzle bushing and brass jags that are fatter than the rod.

November 9, 2003, 01:48 PM
Mr. Gresham....Questions from the audience, here....

What is the bullet diameter of the .204 Ruger? Is the bullet interchangeable with the 5.45x39 bullet? If so, will this lead to the legitimization of the 5.45x39 in American rifles (so long overdue, IMHO)?

If the gun companies are looking for some good "proprietary" rounds to legitimize, why not the 5.45x39 and the .41 Special? I'd be the first on the block to get one of their .41 snubbies if I could get some ".41 Taurus Special" ammo (ballistics similar to .40S&W 180gr. loads). Or how about a "6.5x45mm Bushmaster" for AR-15's?

I don't mind the gun/ammo companies coming up with new items, but I'd like to see them legitimize the existing wildcats first...:cool:

November 9, 2003, 01:58 PM
Actually, that's pretty darn good. The 69 g Sierra MatchKing BTHP heavy .224 bullet has a S.D. of .194. A 40g BlitzKing Hornet bullet has a S.D. of .114.
Releasing a new round with an SD of .192 and a velocity of over 4200 fps is actually kind of interesting. Wonder what the BC of the bullets will be, and how they'll be constructed?

Seems like the Ruger article was telling us what the BC was, .192 and didn't mention the sectional density.

If the BC truely is .192 the little bullet is probably going to shed a surprising amount of it's velocity inside of 300 yards. I don't think it will compare all that well to the more favored high vel. 22s at the longer varminting distances, say compared to .224 bullets like 75-80grns from a 22-250.

The little 20 might be fun for distances out to 300 yards but who else here thinks that it's gonna be similarly limited like the little 17s? Perfect no wind situations and the thing will probably be lots of fun.

I'm with whoever stated, ""Why have a dozen run-of-the-mill rifles in strange and wonderful calibers when for the same price you can have four top grade firearms?"

Black Snowman
November 9, 2003, 02:23 PM
I like high velocities but I'll be getting a .220 Swift first, barrel life be damned! ;)

November 9, 2003, 03:10 PM
"I'm with whoever stated, ""Why have a dozen run-of-the-mill rifles in strange and wonderful calibers when for the same price you can have four top grade firearms?""

I think the problem here is that for some reason, some people seem to think their is some kind of limit. What if I own four top grade firearms AND a dozen run of the mill rifles ? What if I own six dozen top grade rifles ? Who decides what makes a run of the mill rifle ? What if a run of the mill rifle fits my needs exactly ? As things stand right now I can own whatever I want; I don't have to decide between this and that. I own numerous .22 LRs, I own a couple .22 WRMs, I own a number of .223s (two bolt guns and 13 AR15s) , I own a .22-250. If I want a .204 Ruger, then I will buy one of those also.
I have never understood the argument that because I own "X" I can't own "Y". Why can't I ?

Black Snowman
November 9, 2003, 03:23 PM
Well 444, in my case it's budget constraints ;)

I'm with you though, although most of my best firearms were gifts. I buy what I want. I almost made the mistake of buying an "investment" gun when I came into some money and then realised that I don't sell my guns so an "investment" weapon is pointless. So, instead of picking up a "AWB" gun I got what I really wanted, a dead-on accurate high-power rifle. A good-ole new fangled bolt gun.

Now, given budget contraints having the choice of a dozen inexpensive rifles with calibers to suit every possible scenario and having a few rifles I hand-load to taste I'd agree with the previous posters that I'd rather sacrifice "perfect choice" balistics for a quality weapon.

Best instance I can think of for this what when I took way too much gun deer hunting. I had the choice of a few rifles at the time including some better suited calibers but I took a .340 Weatherby Magnum for my 1st deer hunt because I had absolute confidence in the rifle. I ended up destroying a lot of meat unnessisarily but I know that deer didn't suffer either.

Given the choice I went quality over "perfect match" cartridge and I'd do it again.

November 9, 2003, 03:36 PM
Another new cartridge?! BAH! HUMBUG!!! :p :D

Mike Irwin
November 9, 2003, 04:05 PM
"I like high velocities but I'll be getting a .220 Swift first, barrel life be damned!"

Don't firewall every round out of the Swift, trying to get that magical 4,100 fps., and your barrel will last a LONG time. At about 3,800 fps you have virtually the same reach, not much more trajectory, and as a bonus most Swifts that I've worked with a TURBO accurate with 45 and 50 grain bullets in that zone.

The Swift also benefits greatly from modern powder technology, and modern barrel steels.

November 9, 2003, 05:10 PM
I still go back to the .17 Remington, and a bud who hunted fur with one. He thought it would be ideal for minimizing pelt damage. He sold it after having to shoot a bobcat 4 times with it, all 4 times at less than 100 yards. If those little bullets expand, they work, if not, they don't. He went back to his Swift.

I have a couple really good .22's, a Hornet, and a couple .22-250's. I will at some point get a Bolt Action .223, though I keep threatening to buy one of those Remington Classic Fireballs:D

November 9, 2003, 05:27 PM
I have never understood the argument that because I own "X" I can't own "Y". Why can't I ?

That wasn't my point. You can own as many rifles as you want. The constant hype of new cartridges seems to attempt to convince folks that what they have isn't good enough and the latest whiz bang is what they really, really need. Instead of having a dozen rifles in whatever brainchild the factories come up with next I'd rather have 4 rifles of premium quality in .223, 6.5x55, 30-06 and .375. It's a personal choice and with one exception the new cartridges haven't convinced me of the wisdom of buying more rifles in pursuit of an " improvement" that is largely imaginary when it comes to field use.

Matt G
November 9, 2003, 08:28 PM
We need a bigger shamed-faced icon!!:o :o [ducking head in shame]

How did I read "Sectional Density" into "B.C."?!? Lord knows, I know the difference well enough. :o

I will say, though, that the Balistic Coefficient of the new .204 bullet is still as good as the 40g Hornet bullet (at 3kfps+).

Note that BC's sometimes are unpredictable at hypersonic velocities.

November 9, 2003, 09:29 PM
Yeah, I own two .20 caliber airguns...

That's how I know .20 caliber cleaning equipment is pretty scarce.

Art Eatman
November 10, 2003, 08:35 AM
.20 cleaning rods are scarce? Nah. The welding-supply shops are full of them.

:D, Art

November 10, 2003, 11:12 PM
I guess Ruger must be doing something right. Look at all the interest they're generating here. Most positive receptions wont be documented. Only those that want to criticize Ruger for "selling out" on the assault weapons ban. I'm not saying that William Ruger was correct in saying that people shouldn't need any more than 10 rounds. But Ruger does support pro second amendment legislation. We need all the help we can get. Even though some of the larger manufacturers make dumb compromises once in a while, for political reasons, by and large, they are the backbone that supports pro second amendment rights. Do you think some of the small mom and pop custom manufacturers are driving second amendment lobbying? Of course not. It is the big manufacturers that move volume that have the most PAC money.

Besides, with all the hype about with the .17 HRM, why shouldn't Ruger jump on the bandwaggon. They'd be dumb not to. All these gun manufacturers are watching each other's business moves and copying eachother all the time... my little rant.

Maybe I had too much wine tonight.

November 11, 2003, 12:07 AM
My rule for buying new guns is, "will it meet a need not already met by something else I already have?"

Of course, I liberally interpet said rules, after all, I can always justify another Colt 10mm as it will give me a brace of them:evil:

The .22's I have, both rim and centerfire, are neat guns - the #1 in .22-250 is a dream that shoots as good as it looks. My Browning Lo-wall .22 Hornet is nice, but I would like to find a bolt action mid-size .22. Call it a no excuses rifle that can be shot a lot, without frying the barrel or breaking the budget. When I shoot..."no excuses"...if I miss, I know it's me, not the gun or ammo.

I think the right calibers for this would be a Fireball or a .223, partly because the ammo and rifles are readily avalable, and reasonably priced. They are considerably different in function than anything else I own, so it's a fair addition to the collection.

This new Ruger might be a fast stepper, but unless Ruger puts a really smooth bore on it, it's going to foul like crazy. Long barrel life is good, but having to clean the bore every 20 shots ain't much fun.

Will the .204 reach out further than my .22-250? Well, maybe I guess, but I expect a 50 grain bullet launching at 3800 fps is going to be awfully close to the same results at 400 yards. I can load the same 50 grain bullet in the fireball, or in the .223, or in a Swift, for that matter.

So all that said, if I didn't already have a .22-250, or a Swift, I might consider this .204 as my long range varmiteer. Since I (and a lot of other folks) already own something close to it in performance, I can't see any reason to add this caliber. Mind you, if six months from now I stumble on a slightly used, .204 Ruger in a 40xb with a Exhibition Turkish walnut stock, at a reasonable price, I will probably flex my rules and strongly desire a .204:evil:

kentucky bucky
November 11, 2003, 03:44 PM
It reminds me of when tobacco companies flood the retail market with new "brands" of cigs. For some reason it stimulates sales for a while, but nothing new is at hand except on the labels.

November 12, 2003, 06:24 AM

You still haven't answered my question....:confused:

John Galt
November 13, 2003, 12:14 AM
Most of the early replies here compare this to the 17HMR and such.
- No such comparison! It is spec'd at 4200fps. Not 2200 or 2600fps.

The 22-250 and swift use too much powder to accomplish what they do.
The 223 is a bit slow.

I saw a pic of a fox shot with a 17-Mach-IV that blew a huge hole it it's side. They do seem to work. I think the velocity there is about 4000fps.

* I just shot a prairie dog at 548 yards with a 223 and 55grn psp. It was too far for that cartridge. I would have loved to have been using a 40grn and a lot more velocity. Anything over about 300 yards were pretty hard to hit and the drop climed quickly.

If you enjoyed reading about "New Rifle Cartridge -- .204 Ruger" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!